If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There is none.
If there is a poll on this thread whether this 2-player rule is about IOC ideals to promote baddy and participation from many nations, or to control CHN dominating this sport and especially TT, it will be lop-sided in your favor, you don't really have to argue so hard, there really is no contest.
CHN is dominant in baddy but not at the dominating level of TT where the best from the ROW, whether male or female, in any discipline, cannot hope for any medal of any color if OLY participation is open to 3 or 4 players from any nation that can qualify her players. CHN will sweep every medals in all 5 disciplines in TT.
The rules change for TT is bordering on ridiculous, and there were so many rule changes since the days of 21-pt system, still CHN persevere. It might as well be CHN against the ROW (in 1 team) for OLY and WC.
This 2-person rule will ensure no sweep for CHN, at the expense of her best players, plain and simple. To eliminate CHN domination, without introducing this 2-player rule, is to ban these 2 sports altogether.
OLY after OLY, WC after WC, BWF cannot solve CHN domination, WO and match fixing. The latter 2 are not illegal but unsportsmanship, but then given the same opportunity, I don't believe other nations would not do it, just that they don't have the cards to play. On CHN domination, the ROW is not good enough. So if you cannot beat CHN, set rules to screw her. One swipe of the pen at IOC/BWF boardroom to initiate this rule, 3 birds are killed with 1 stone, marvelous and you can see beneficiary of this rule doing cartwheels and jumping jacks, while the affected players just helplessly gotten screwed, their OLY dream bite the dust.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but you seem to be of the opinion that I'm only concerned with the fairness portion of the rule change. It is not, though it is important. My argument is that the rule changes don't work.

The ultimate goal is to increase the popularity of badminton, correct? We want more popularity, more exposure, hopefully we want to head to a path of professional circuits and in the short term, we want other countries to be more competitive? How do the rule changes accomplish any of that? As AlanY mentioned, we've been limiting the Chinese ever since Sydney. For better or worse, that will be five Olympics after Rio, 16 to 20 years. We've only seen an increase in Chinese dominance since then.

These rule changes certainly don't increase the competitiveness of the rest of the world, unless you are putting it in relative terms, as in, potentially making the Chinese as mediocre as everybody else.

Instead of using these self-defeating methods, how about we replicated the Chinese training regime, science medicine, coaching methods and general dedication to the sport? That seems like getting to the root of the problem instead of beating around the bush.

All of the above mentioned by mindreader is easier said than done. There are many issues that are inextricably linked with others, and while it may seem insurmountable, any solution would take more than just a few years.

So where to start? With the constitution of BWF itself, IMO. And with a change in the status of pro players.

I keep being reminded by the back of my head that one megabucks sport that doesn't rely on the OG for its popularity and health, is tennis. And all because at some opportune time in the past, it opted for a different approach. It is not impossible to borrow from the ATP model, but that is a big omelette we're talking about! And it will require a lot of very expensive, very powerful, broken eggs...

I have a feeling this is more suitable to other existing threads, but a lot of chatter on this thread is also related. In the end, I think we all want the same thing -with some minor variations or adjustments- but one thing is clear as day -as long as national pride and related structures and priorities/opportunities take precedence, all this ain't going nowhere!

The 4th/5th/6th etc ranked players should absolutely be included. The entire policy to limit the number from the top of the ranking list rather than from the bottom is simply wrong. Say you have a qualified list of the top 32 players and you need a continental/host wildcard, why not remove the last player whose country is already represented and give that place to the wildcard? That is surely a fairer way than taking away the chance from a WR3/4/5 etc, no?

And if you say well it's the Olympics, fine I'll give you that the BWF may have to adhere to certain guidelines of the IOC and their hands are tied, but why have similar quotas in the World Championships? Isn't the definition of WC the competition of the best players in the world?

All these policies only point to one thing: these rules are made to target and limit the dominant country, China in this case.

For the increased viewership on YouTube, I would like to see the breakdown of countries viewership before being totally convinced. There is a good possibility that a major proportion of the viewership was from just one country.

And to reiterate OTB, yes there is a location on a country. The problem came about by the sheer extent of manipulation that we have seen. So what LYB has done comes back on his team. Unfair for the china players, yes. Was China being fair on the rest of the world's players, BWF and the global game of badminton with their walkover/withdrawal? No

I'm guessing the rule change doesn't come because on wanting to limit the world's best players. I think it comes as a safeguard to reduce the manipulation that has happened in the past such as 2000 Olympics ladies singles semi final/final (link given previously).

(That Badzine statistic doesn't include matches where one side doesn't make an effort to play but completes the match).

What would be better for the game? Have the world's best players but the team orders abuse the system and deprive the fan of proper matches (and negative publicity). Or have the world's best players (bar a reduction of one), throw in some other continent's for the Olympic Rings and have the players fight it out to the best of their ability?

And no, Wang DOESN'T get to play. He didn't get to play the UC, not the TC, not the Asian Games. He only got to play the Worlds because somebody else decided to take a year off. And he won't get to play the Olympics either.

All of the above mentioned by mindreader is easier said than done. There are many issues that are inextricably linked with others, and while it may seem insurmountable, any solution would take more than just a few years.

So where to start? With the constitution of BWF itself, IMO. And with a change in the status of pro players.

I keep being reminded by the back of my head that one megabucks sport that doesn't rely on the OG for its popularity and health, is tennis. And all because at some opportune time in the past, it opted for a different approach. It is not impossible to borrow from the ATP model, but that is a big omelette we're talking about! And it will require a lot of very expensive, very powerful, broken eggs...

I have a feeling this is more suitable to other existing threads, but a lot of chatter on this thread is also related. In the end, I think we all want the same thing -with some minor variations or adjustments- but one thing is clear as day -as long as national pride and related structures and priorities/opportunities take precedence, all this ain't going nowhere!

Exactly. So BWF has tweak what it can at present. Wouldn't it be a nightmare to market a global game where matches are manipulated?

All of the above mentioned by mindreader is easier said than done. There are many issues that are inextricably linked with others, and while it may seem insurmountable, any solution would take more than just a few years.

So where to start? With the constitution of BWF itself, IMO. And with a change in the status of pro players.

I keep being reminded by the back of my head that one megabucks sport that doesn't rely on the OG for its popularity and health, is tennis. And all because at some opportune time in the past, it opted for a different approach. It is not impossible to borrow from the ATP model, but that is a big omelette we're talking about! And it will require a lot of very expensive, very powerful, broken eggs...

I have a feeling this is more suitable to other existing threads, but a lot of chatter on this thread is also related. In the end, I think we all want the same thing -with some minor variations or adjustments- but one thing is clear as day -as long as national pride and related structures and priorities/opportunities take precedence, all this ain't going nowhere!

I'm certainly not gonna sugar-coat it and suggest it's all easy. But you know what, the gap between China and other associations used to be much closer. Li Yongbo certainly didn't snap a finger and China started winning. No, at some point China did the work, despite it being hard. They improved their condition training, sports medicine, coaching, organization, systematic training and did plain hard work. Say what you will about the Chinese, when it counted, they got stuff done. Why can't other associations do that?

Other associations, my goodness, Korea can't even schedule a drug test for its most illustrious player. What we have here is to reduce the professionalism of the Chinese to these standards. I certainly hope that's not the case. If we want professional sports, this is not the way to do it.

It is hard work, it'll take time, but the longer we beat around the bushes the further behind the rest of the world falls. At this point we're not even TALKING about emulating the Chinese method, despite them having figured out how to do it for you.

Whatever the motivations of the new rule, all that really matters is that CHN is the only association that will be affected by this (both now and in the foreseeable future), and it's impossible that BWF did not realize this but rather let this measure proceed anyways. Freeing up a single slot in each singles discipline is not going to accomplish anything except to decrease CHN's chances at a title.

As a collective organization, CBA is so far ahead of its competitors that it only makes sense that BWF would try to target it and Chinese players. And that's essentially all​ that matters about this policy.

For the increased viewership on YouTube, I would like to see the breakdown of countries viewership before being totally convinced. There is a good possibility that a major proportion of the viewership was from just one country.

As would I. However, Youtube doesn't seem to have that statistic available. Regardless, the purpose of attracting badminton fans and followers and raising awareness is achieved, isn't it? Does it really matter which country the awareness is in?

And to reiterate OTB, yes there is a location on a country. The problem came about by the sheer extent of manipulation that we have seen. So what LYB has done comes back on his team. Unfair for the china players, yes. Was China being fair on the rest of the world's players, BWF and the global game of badminton with their walkover/withdrawal? No

I'm guessing the rule change doesn't come because on wanting to limit the world's best players. I think it comes as a safeguard to reduce the manipulation that has happened in the past such as 2000 Olympics ladies singles semi final/final (link given previously).

(That Badzine statistic doesn't include matches where one side doesn't make an effort to play but completes the match).

I believe that the high walkover/withdrawal rate in the regular tournaments are as much a problem as they are symptoms of the quota system in place for the Olympics/WC. Subjectively speaking, I remember much less of such incidents leading up to Sydney or Athens as compared to Beijing and London. I would say that the quota system exacerbated the manipulation.

I fully agree that manipulation for the sole purpose of letting a teammate win (for a "team gold", for ranking points, etc) should be entirely eliminated. These include your example of the Sydney WS SF, the 2008 AE MSF, possibly the 2011 SIN MSF, etc. But, I don't think policies like this are the way to do it.

However, I also believe that every individual player should maximize their own chances. Take YYWXL in London for instance. If you take nationality out of the equation, they were playing to avoid the second best team in the world, the only one with a reasonable chance of upsetting them at the time. Players should play to win the tournament. Most of the time it is synonymous with playing to win the match, but in this case it was not, and therefore the rules and the round robin system are to be blamed, no one else.

Or take Chen Jin at the Beijing Olympics. Many claimed that he gave Lin Dan an easy time so LD would be fresh for the final. If he didn't play to his 100%, is it so hard to think that he might have wanted to conserve energy for the Bronze match? Is that wrong of him to do so? Given LD's form, CJ's chance of winning was probably like 5%. He is maximizing his own chances, and I believe he is right to.

What would be better for the game? Have the world's best players but the team orders abuse the system and deprive the fan of proper matches (and negative publicity). Or have the world's best players (bar a reduction of one), throw in some other continent's for the Olympic Rings and have the players fight it out to the best of their ability?

Well I heard the BWF is sticking to the round robin system for Rio, so clearly they have no clue where the problem was and what is "good for the game". The negative publicity came from WD, where the 2 pairs rule is already in effect. I have no idea how they think that implementing this rule in Singles is going to help curb the "manipulation".

That's actually hilarious. How many 4th single in ANY country ISN'T erratic. 1st singles in MOST countries are erratic. 1st singles in MOST countries havent' won jack. Except 1st singles in other countries get to play and Wang Zhengming doesn't.

Here's the ranking list. Other than a select few at the top, WHICH players isn't erratic? Which ones have actually won anything? Believe it or not, there's a reason why Wang is ranked 9th in the world instead of Kashyap Parupalli.

And about Chen Long, he's superior in EVERY way to Wang Zhengming at present. Li Yongbo made the right decision, but that just means unless Wang Zhengming can overtake Chen Long, he'll never get to play. Once again, thanks for making my point for me.

And if Wang never gets to play, he'll NEVER develop and become less erratic.

Now go ahead and tell me how consistent (or should I say consistently bad) Parupalli is.

Whatever the motivations of the new rule, all that really matters is that CHN is the only association that will be affected by this (both now and in the foreseeable future), and it's impossible that BWF did not realize this but rather let this measure proceed anyways. Freeing up a single slot in each singles discipline is not going to accomplish anything except to decrease CHN's chances at a title.

As a collective organization, CBA is so far ahead of its competitors that it only makes sense that BWF would try to target it and Chinese players. And that's essentially all​ that matters about this policy.

agree. If BWF really wants to popularize this game, then way BWF didn't set the rule of maximum 2 if in top 8 ?

sony, tanongsak, sindhu and etc will be out...so the other countries in africa or south america can gets more olympics ticket.

There is none.
If there is a poll on this thread whether this 2-player rule is about IOC ideals to promote baddy and participation from many nations, or to control CHN dominating this sport and especially TT, it will be lop-sided in your favor, you don't really have to argue so hard, there really is no contest.
CHN is dominant in baddy but not at the dominating level of TT where the best from the ROW, whether male or female, in any discipline, cannot hope for any medal of any color if OLY participation is open to 3 or 4 players from any nation that can qualify her players. CHN will sweep every medals in all 5 disciplines in TT.
The rules change for TT is bordering on ridiculous, and there were so many rule changes since the days of 21-pt system, still CHN persevere. It might as well be CHN against the ROW (in 1 team) for OLY and WC.
This 2-person rule will ensure no sweep for CHN, at the expense of her best players, plain and simple. To eliminate CHN domination, without introducing this 2-player rule, is to ban these 2 sports altogether.
OLY after OLY, WC after WC, BWF cannot solve CHN domination, WO and match fixing. The latter 2 are not illegal but unsportsmanship, but then given the same opportunity, I don't believe other nations would not do it, just that they don't have the cards to play. On CHN domination, the ROW is not good enough. So if you cannot beat CHN, set rules to screw her. One swipe of the pen at IOC/BWF boardroom to initiate this rule, 3 birds are killed with 1 stone, marvelous and you can see beneficiary of this rule doing cartwheels and jumping jacks, while the affected players just helplessly gotten screwed, their OLY dream bite the dust.

Why China dominates? coz the other nations not work hard enough...

What China could manipulate matches? coz other nation not work hard enough to kick China's ass...

How do these less hard-working nations do? not work harder on court to beat China, but to use non-sports means to screw China, so that the less hard-working nations could win more...

what kinds of logic is this??? that's why i think this badminton sports is going to die...

Just be reading the suggestion that badminton could be one of the sports that's moved to the Winter Olympics. Apparently this would easy the presure on numbers at the summer games and allow more sports and more events for those moving. (cyling is mentioned). Maybe this is something the BWF could support. Moving it to the winter games means you could still have the 'old' country numbers but increase NOC spread by doubling the draws (at the moment rediculously small). They cold also add a men's and teams event.

Just be reading the suggestion that badminton could be one of the sports that's moved to the Winter Olympics. Apparently this would easy the presure on numbers at the summer games and allow more sports and more events for those moving. (cyling is mentioned). Maybe this is something the BWF could support. Moving it to the winter games means you could still have the 'old' country numbers but increase NOC spread by doubling the draws (at the moment rediculously small). They cold also add a men's and teams event.

Strangely, as a consequence of the recent discussion on the pending demise of Saina Nehwal, with mixed feelings, I think the limit of two is the right thing to do.

For China, a bronze medal would be a failure that should be swept under the carpet. But for others, it can be such a powerful adrenaline shot that can change the fortune of badminton in those regions.

Case in point, a bronze medal is enough to turn a promising talent, Saina Nehwal, into a shadow of her former self. That's obviously the negative aspect of it. But the positive aspect is that badminton has gained so much ground in India in terms of popularity and money for that to happen.

The Olympics is as much a political event as a sporting event. So we do things not with "the big picture" in mind but with "the super gigantic picture" in mind. Taking the long view, putting in the limit of two is the right thing to do.

On the other hand, I don't want to see the same happening at the World Championships where the potential banning of the World's number 3 and 4 players would turn it into a joke.

If you watch the match of Li Xue Rui and Saina Nehwal first set 4-1 to 6-2, there is a discussion on exactly this issue. Big Jim (who once was a very decent player himself) argues for no limit on countries in normal tournaments including the World championship.

However, he does say that there are limits in the Olympics and that is because of the IOC.

For us in this thread, the gist of it is, no matter how much ranting goes on at BWF, the limit is by the IOC. It's the IOC that has the greater say. If BWF on principle don't like it, and IOC refuses to budge, BWF can always leave the Olympics.

Now it does puzzle me why some sports have different limits on numbers of competitors for entering the Olympics. This, I don't think is entirely fair until a compelling explanation comes along.